LEND ME on NOOK - False Advertising

[wordsandmelodi…]

I'm glad to hear that.  :~)  Thanks!

[juliekaye]

If I had control over the "lend me" feature, I'd have set it up differently.  Books could be lent more than once (maybe unlimited but probably more likely a set number and only to different people) but the 14 days would be shortened to say 3 or so.  Some people can read a book in a day or two but I imagine there are more people who can't with work and family, etc.  This allows them to get a better "taste" of the book, decide whether they want to keep reading or not.  If they do, then guess what?  They have to buy it when the 3 days (or whatever) is up.  If they don't like it, well then no harm and the book goes back to the original owner.

This I'd iamgine would set up more sales of a book and does a lot more to get a person interested and invested than the current "samples" do (it takes me several chapters to really decide if I'm into a book or not).  I know I hate to not finish a book so unless I just find it the most awful book ever, I'd probably be buying most of the books that were lent to me.  

Personally, I'd rather be able to lend the book more than once to different people and have the length of time shortened than the way it's set up now.  I've had people look at me like I'm crazy though when I've mentioned this idea so maybe it's just me.  lol

[PChefKrissy]

I just purchased my NOOK and was very disheartened to find out that I can only lend a book one time. Does anyone know why this is the case?? I feel like if I've purchased the book, I should be able to lend it to whomever I want, however many times I want... Any feedback is appreciated.

[geertm]

---

PChefKrissy wrote:

I just purchased my NOOK and was very disheartened to find out that I can only lend a book one time. Does anyone know why this is the case?? I feel like if I've purchased the book, I should be able to lend it to whomever I want, however many times I want... Any feedback is appreciated.

---

The Lendme restrictions are publisher restrictions. Publishers want to sell ebooks, not lend them. When Amazon started to lend ebooks (with the same restrictions) many publishers disabled lending for their ebooks on Amazon and unfortunately also on  B&N.

Most publishers for the same reason do not like to sell their ebooks to libraries. Some do not sell their books to libraries at all. Penguin recently stopped selling new ebooks to libraries.

[gb18]

The problem is that we do not own the book as we would a hard copy.  The notion of "buying" an ebook (at least from most "bookstores") is a fallacy.  We do not own them.

[Naosnote]

If more people would just use the feature as it is, then maybe B&N would be open to adjusting it to meet the demand. To me, I would rather use it and borrow book once then to not be able to borrow it at all.

[geertm]

---

Naosnote wrote:

If more people would just use the feature as it is, then maybe B&N would be open to adjusting it to meet the demand. To me, I would rather use it and borrow book once then to not be able to borrow it at all.

---

B&N can adjust nothing, and has no say in this.

These are publisher restrictions. Publishers want you to buy their books, not lend them.

[Desert_Brat]

To repeat what gb18 said, you do not own an ebook. When you "purchase" an ebook, what you are really paying for is a license fee that allows you to read the book. This is established by the publisher (as many others have said)  and B&N has no control whatsoever over what books are lendable and what books are not. All PubIt books are lendable, it's one of the requirements to publish through the PubIt program.

[Kiana_Darkrose]

I don't believe it's Nook Color exclusive because I have a Simple Touch and I have the LendMe feature.

It's kind of a bummer that you can only lend it to someone once, however I'm sure the reason behind it is that lending it too often would violate copywright/distribution laws. It's kind of like buying a CD and making a bunch of copies to give to your friends.

If you read something though that you know your friends will like you can encourage them to get it, which is more money for the author, which means the author will make enough to keep writing us some great stuff to read!

[beeyebickiebuy]

---

Kiana_Darkrose wrote:

..., however I'm sure the reason behind it is that lending it too often would violate copywright/distribution laws. ...

---

Perhaps, but really it comes down to what nearly everything in life is all about - Money.  Any other reason about why an organization does this or anything else falls in behind Money every time.

[LarryOnLI]

---

beeyebickiebuy wrote:

---

Kiana_Darkrose wrote:

..., however I'm sure the reason behind it is that lending it too often would violate copywright/distribution laws. ...

---

Perhaps, but really it comes down to what nearly everything in life is all about - Money.  Any other reason about why an organization does this or anything else falls in behind Money every time.

---

You are absolutely correct, it is all about money.

Your desire to keep more money in your pocket, and the authors/publishers desire to have more money in theirs.

You might feel it is your right to freely share the electronic edition of the book you bought, but the author feels just a strongly that he should be able to put food on the table for his family this week, and the law is on his side.

[DavidSearls]

As a reader, I'm all for maximum lending capabilities. Power to the people! But as a published author (Bloodthirst in Babylon, Samhain Horror), I have to come down on the side of "The Man."

Every "lend" is a lost sale, though I understand it's no different than tossing your friend your tattered paperback. Or borrowing a book from the library. I guess the logical compromise is the one-time lending functionality B&N built in. Or at least it keeps writers and publishers no more disgrunteld than readers. 

[bklvr896]

---

DavidSearls wrote:

As a reader, I'm all for maximum lending capabilities. Power to the people! But as a published author (Bloodthirst in Babylon, Samhain Horror), I have to come down on the side of "The Man."

Every "lend" is a lost sale, though I understand it's no different than tossing your friend your tattered paperback. Or borrowing a book from the library. I guess the logical compromise is the one-time lending functionality B&N built in. Or at least it keeps writers and publishers no more disgrunteld than readers. 

---

As an FYI, B&N didn't build in the one time lending, the publishers did.  In fact, after Amazon introduced lending on the Kindle sometime last year, a lot of the publishers pulled their books from the LendMe program altogether.  So now there are a lot less lendable titles than there were a year or so ago.

[Benson-St_Louis]

I had no clue that I could only lend a book once.  And as an author, I would want my books out there.  It has been my experience that if someone likes a book and passes it on then the recipient is more likely to read a sequel or another book by the same author.  I don't think the authors are the sole reason for the limit.  As a teacher, I am disappointed.  I would like to loan these books to my students and not have to worry about losing the book forever.  That is such a struggle for teachers and books aren't cheap.

[RHWright]

Hate to bump a thread with a starting subject I disagree with, but...

I wonder if it's possible to allow publishers to set their own lending parameters.

Sure, some want no lending, and already don't opt in to LendMe.

Right now we have a model where some agree to the 1 time/2 weeks policy.

Wouldn't it be nice if the more generous/enlightened publishers could make those parameters more liberal for their titles? And allow them to set it on a per title basis, if they want, with the terms clearly stated (somewhere) on the product page & receipt/confirmation.

So, if publisher X likes the 1x/2w format, so be it. Publisher Y may decide to go with 3x/4w. While good ol' publisher B may make only their new release 1x/2w, but older titles 10x/3w.

I would also like to see the lendability terms locked in for each customer at the time of purchase. As it is, a book may be lendable at time of purchase, but that lendability (limited as it is) may be rescinded without notice at any time, even before it has not been lent out that one time. If you bought it lendable, it should stay lendable until you've used that pre-determined number of loan-outs.

This hasn't impacted me directly, but I know others that it has.

[keriflur]

---

DavidSearls wrote:

Every "lend" is a lost sale

---

Not true, though I see where you're going with this.  If I'm lukewarm on a book, I won't buy it, but if my friend has it I might borrow it and read it.  In this case, the publisher is losing nothing, as I wasn't going to buy the book anyway.  They do have the possibility of the upside though - if I like the book I'll probably buy others by the author.  If I don't like the book, no harm, no foul.

So, some, probably many, lends are lost sales.  But not all of them.  Sometimes the publisher loses on a lend, but sometimes they win.

[RHWright]

---

DavidSearls wrote:

As a reader, I'm all for maximum lending capabilities. Power to the people! But as a published author (Bloodthirst in Babylon, Samhain Horror), I have to come down on the side of "The Man."

Every "lend" is a lost sale, though I understand it's no different than tossing your friend your tattered paperback. Or borrowing a book from the library. I guess the logical compromise is the one-time lending functionality B&N built in. Or at least it keeps writers and publishers no more disgrunteld than readers. 

---

If you go by the logic that every time someone reads your book and does not pay you=a "lost sale," sure. But then so, as you point out, would be giving someone your DTB copy, or borrowing from a library, or buying a used copy, or reading their own copy more than once. (Heck, they could have bought a new book and read that instead.)

Unlike plain old file sharing, LendMe at least has safeguards built in that only one active "copy" of a book exists at a time.

But I think it's better to think of lent copies as free advertising than lost sales. It helps get your name out, build & expand a fan base, etc.

For decades, publishers have had little problem with sending out free advance/review copies of titles. Think of this in a similar vein. Instead of getting those copies into the hands of people a few steps removed from the final purchase decision, now you can have consumers marketing directly to other consumers.

Wholesale illegal file sharing is another matter entirely. But programs like LendMe need to be encouraged and nurtured to help cut down on these less reasonable activities.

[keriflur]

---

RHWright wrote:

For decades, publishers have had little problem with sending out free advance/review copies of titles.

---

They're having problems lately, LOL.  They're requesting contracts from reviewers who receive ARCs, requiring reviews, monitoring the content of those reviews.  The times, they are a changin'.

[RHWright]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

RHWright wrote:

For decades, publishers have had little problem with sending out free advance/review copies of titles.

---

They're having problems lately, LOL.  They're requesting contracts from reviewers who receive ARCs, requiring reviews, monitoring the content of those reviews.  The times, they are a changin'.

---

Really? You're kidding me. I haven't been on any ARC lists since I left the bookstore. That's just crazy.

[keriflur]

---

RHWright wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

---

RHWright wrote:

For decades, publishers have had little problem with sending out free advance/review copies of titles.

---

They're having problems lately, LOL.  They're requesting contracts from reviewers who receive ARCs, requiring reviews, monitoring the content of those reviews.  The times, they are a changin'.

---

Really? You're kidding me. I haven't been on any ARC lists since I left the bookstore. That's just crazy.

---

It's because of the book blogger craze.  I assume they gradually started sending more and more ARCs, and then one day realized just how many free books were going out the door.  Now they're trying to figure out how to send fewer ARCs but get the same amount of grassroots publicity.  It hasn't been working out so well for them.  Book bloggers have been posting the publishers' contracts and policies on their blogs and tweeting about the unfairness of it all, which of course is not the type of publicity the publishers are looking for, LOL.